It seems to me--and I can't prove this archaeologically, because this is a metaphysical issue--is that the best way to "pass over" things is to say nothing, rather than grandstanding about what you are not planning to say about the integrity of people who do not share your vision of reality.

And it seems to me that you deliberately impugned me.

Why? I do not know but as you are continuing this silly attack for no reason that is readily apparent to me then perhaps you should reconsider, apologize and I will do the gentlemanly thing and accept your apology. Or else as a forum moderator you might consider that you have strayed into an area where if someone else had posted what you said you would have deleted it. I don't mind rigorous debate but personal slurs like the one you made are way out of order.

I identified the rhetorical device that you were using to introduce an issue. It has a beautiful name: "apophasis." Someone who indulges in apophasis says one thing ("I pass over in silence ...") and does another ("the accusation that my adversaries are all messianic idiots who cannot tell the difference between believing and reasoning. Far be it from me to imply that they are gullible fools being bilked of their money by TIGHAR, which could, of course, have salted the site at any time with carefully crafted counterfeits, when the legend of the N.B. tag casts doubt on the whole Niku hypothesis. It would be beneath my dignity to say such things").

Quote

Why? I do not know but as you are continuing this silly attack for no reason that is readily apparent to me ...

Perhaps that is because the reasons are not empirical, but metaphysical. You won't find the reasons through your specialty, digging and dating.

Quote

... then perhaps you should reconsider, apologize and I will do the gentlemanly thing and accept your apology. Or else as a forum moderator you might consider that you have strayed into an area where if someone else had posted what you said you would have deleted it. I don't mind rigorous debate but personal slurs like the one you made are way out of order.

I'm very grateful that you introduced the observation that the practice of archaeology depends on the trustworthiness of the archaeologists. It is more evidence from your own lips that archaeology is faith-based. The integrity of a researcher is, like my motives for replying to your posts, a metaphysical, not a physical reality. The methods of archaeology cannot be used to determine the trustworthiness of an archaeologist. To accept another person's findings and rely on them in building up an account of a historical period, one must believe in them. No faith, no field of archaeology.

You said "For me it has always been bits of all those things. One project the final result was just what the accumulated data indicated, as I saw it. That one started out as a side issue in another project I was involved with and in the process of that I found that detailed research was lacking in the particular area which I was allotted."

So which one do you start with? If you're assigned a role in some research, for example, do you support the assignment til it takes you elsewhere, or do you do the assignment with whatever scope controls are in place, and then pursue the anomolies separately? (Assuming you were in control of your assignment, like here where I decide what to examine or review) what would be the most rigorous first step? For example only: let's say, for some reason, there is disagreement about the size of the plane. I would like to find out what is correct, so I assign myself the task of looking into this. (It is just for my own satisfaction - i'm not working on an official project or anything like that.) What should the first steps be? Gather data about the plane, review data presented in the discussion and then look for independent data corroborating or disproving the existing data, or something else?

My wife says there's a dead horse in the living room, and I'm the one to blame for it, but sometimes it takes me a while to sort things out.

The integrity of a researcher is, like my motives for replying to your posts, a metaphysical, not a physical reality. The methods of archaeology cannot be used to determine the trustworthiness of an archaeologist. To accept another person's findings and rely on them in building up an account of a historical period, one must believe in them. No faith, no field of archaeology.

Dr Moleski - I don't think you realise the seriousness of what you casually inferred I had done. I'll say once more - you have abused your position as a forum moderator and if you had any understanding of that role you would withdraw unconditionally that comment to which I have objected.

You said "For me it has always been bits of all those things. One project the final result was just what the accumulated data indicated, as I saw it. That one started out as a side issue in another project I was involved with and in the process of that I found that detailed research was lacking in the particular area which I was allotted."

So which one do you start with? If you're assigned a role in some research, for example, do you support the assignment til it takes you elsewhere, or do you do the assignment with whatever scope controls are in place, and then pursue the anomolies separately? (Assuming you were in control of your assignment, like here where I decide what to examine or review) what would be the most rigorous first step?

Hello Leon

I see what you are driving at. Well the answer is do the allotted task as one is obligated and pursue anything that arises separately. However if for instance something came to light that showed that the comparative material being used in the study for reference purposes had certain unrecognised anomalies that would affect the outcomes of the current work then it would be necessary to make note of that in the report.

Got it. So even if you recognized the anomolies then you'd proceed for the moment even it effected the ultimate outcome.

Well, Ok.

No you haven't - I'd only proceed if the noted anomalies were not relevant to the purpose for which the references were being used.

E.g. I am examining a pottery assemblage from a late Neolithic site and combing through published excavation reports for parallels. In passing I note that certain copper artifacts seem to differ according to site location but the pottery does not. Therefore I note the difference in the copper artifacts as a small footnote but also note that the pottery assemblage shows no differences. However if in examining the aforesaid Late Neolithic pottery assemblage I note that the pottery itself shows some stylistic or fabric differences which it appears occurs in parallel with the differences in the copper assemblage then I would naturally attempt to understand, through further comparison, if there is a relation between between the anomalies due to a third unrecognised factor.

I have proudly been a Tighar member for several years. I consider it an honor to belong; however, for me, the old Tighar hypothesis badly needs updating. Some members might agree with me, and I’m sure many won’t.

1. Amelia found Gardner island by running a LOP of 157/337 One of the reasons I joined TIGHAR was I was told that Amelia’s last words were something to the effect that they were running the 157/337 LOP and that if you drew a line from Howland to Gardner, that angle would be very close to 337 degrees. To the north of Howland on 157 was open water, to the south, besides Gardner island on 337 was the Phoenix group of islands acting like a ‘catcher’s mitt’ so if you missed Gardner there were other islands. This made a lot of sense to me and I became a believer. I since have found out that you can’t run a LOP of 337 from the Howland vicinity and hit Gardner, at least mot at that time of day they were there.

2. Found Gardner instead by ‘ dead reckoning ‘ This of course made sense to me, because as a pilot, I had done some ‘dead reckoning’, and there also was this catcher’s mitt theory to help if they missed Gardner and so again I believed. You probably realize how I felt when I was reminded that you can’t dead reckon to anywhere, if you first don’t know where you are starting from.

3. Catchers Mitt Then there is the disappearance of the ‘Catcher’s Mitt’ theory ( many islands close enough together that you should run into one of them ). I guess disappearance is not the correct term as something that never was, can’t disappear.

4. Landing at Gardner Island But the good news is I still think there is a good chance that Amelia did find Gardner, maybe by the box/search method, or maybe by pure luck. And that she landed, probably close to the Norwich wreck.

5. Post Transmits

If Amelia landed at Gardner I think most, if not all, credible transmits are real, and that would certainly include Betty and Mabel’s injuries transmits.

6. The Lambrecht Flight If I may let me please skip ahead to the Castaway and then return.

7. The Castaway of the Seven Site By far, in my opinion, the biggest mistake Tighar has made is the acceptance and propagation of what many would call “just another urban legend”. We have spent much money, time and effort on this seven site and everything we have found is more consistent with many other peoples of this island visiting this site than it is to just one castaway and not a single object has been found that we can trace to Amelia. ‘Old school theorists’ are going to be very reluctant to give up on this castaway of the seven site theory. I admit it is very romantic. The seven site offered many promising clues a few years ago, and after much work on our part, not one of the clues have paid off. It is now time to put the castaway theory on the back burner and move forward in more promising areas, such as her base camp for Fred and her first five days. For those members not willing to give up on the seven site castaway, theory, then start selling the Tighar membership on another trip back to the seven site, this time to dig a little deeper; maybe to the 30 cm level, or possibly to 50 cm; or maybe we should move our search to the north or south of the seven site, we can call them the six site or the eight site, or how about moving to the east or west of the seven site. Does anyone really believe that we can generate much excitement for a ‘dig’ at the 7 west site ?

6. The Lambrecht Flight If anyone is rethinking the castaway of the seven site being Amelia then I suggest you rethink the Lambrecht flight also. The only reason that Amelia has to be ALIVE during Lambrechts’ flight is so she can be alive and move down to the seven site and become it’s castaway, and spend the next few weeks, or possibly months, hunting, fishing, and building fires in different locations. Amelia never set foot on the seven site. She and Fred may very well have found Gardner island and landed by the Norwich wreck, got their radio working and transmitted for five days or so, with most, if not all credible transmits being legit, (including the injury ones). Because of lack of survival training, survival preparations (extra water), 120 degree temps, and possible injuries, by weeks end, both Amelia and Fred were dead. Maybe in Amelia’s last hours, in a do a die effort, Amelia struggled to her feet and staged southward down the beach to find help or water. When the sun got too hot to continue, she spotted the shade from a large ren tree; she crawled up to it, closed her eyes and died. This is the only hypothesis that is short, simple (occam’s razor anyone ?) and fits the evidence Tighar has found about Amelia, her disappearance, the post transmits, and the Lambrecht flights. For those members not wanting to accept this hypothesis, there is always Gary LaPook’s ‘crashed and sank’, but frankly I think that that one sucks.

OK baseballs not a game i'm familier with but I would suggest that a 'catchers mitt' dosn't guarantee a catch every time. The word is a metaphor more than anything but you've got more chance of finding land if there are a number of islands in an area against just one.

The Phoenix Islands being a 'catchers mitt' seems plausible at first glance but, as we know from another incident, Eddie Rickenbackers B-17 flight to Canton island, the idea doesn't always seem as simple as it first appears to be. After the over-shoot of canton they spent a further 4 hours searching for canton Island without success. They were in the Phoenix Island group and, ended up ditching into the Pacific.

As this example of a missing aircraft and, the subsequent search for it in the Phoenix group of islands is the only other one apart from the Lambrecht search for AE and FN there might be some worth in using it as a comparison/control as to how they went about it. Any similarities, for example: length of search, area of search, weather, sightings etc..

Lambrecht and company say there were signs of a recent camp. Let's assume that's because there were signs of a recent camp. Why isn't it from someone else? This uninhabited island seems to have been pretty busy. I'm not saying AE and FN, but perhaps some natives, pearl divers, fisherman, whoever. They might have 'cleaned up' after AE and FN, say out of religous respect. Just a wild imaging that might account for Lambrecht's remark.

Leon

Disclaimer: This post does not claim any evidence of anything anywhere anytime, nor any suggestion of evidence, proof, hypothesis, theory, claim or suggestion. This post is not intended to influence anyone to think anything about anything ever, anywhere. Void where prohibited by the scientific method. Some restrictions may apply.

Leon, let's be a little more precise here. Lt Lambrecht said in his report there were "signs of recent habitation". Even when he was interviewed by TIGHAR much later, he did not or would not elaborate on what those signs were. See page 3 of Lt. Lambrecht's report linked below.

Leon, let's be a little more precise here. Lt Lambrecht said in his report there were "signs of recent habitation". Even when he was interviewed by TIGHAR much later, he did not or would not elaborate on what those signs were. See page 3 of Lt. Lambrecht's report linked below.

Woody, don't you find it strange that despite the report by Lambrecht of 'signs of recent habitation' there was no follow up investigation of Gardner Island for these 'signs of recent habitation'. Have I missed something?

Yes Jeff, I find that very strange since Capt Friedell's report, he was the capt of the Colorado, says on page 6, last paragaph, see link below, that "No dwellings appeared on Gardner or any other signs of inhabitation". This totally contradicts Lt Lambrecht's report of this issue.

Capt Friedell seemed to be more concerned about the visit of "Neptunus Rex and his court" than this discrepancy, see last para page 7 and 1st para page 8 of his report.

Yes Jeff, I find that very strange since Capt Friedell's report, he was the capt of the Colorado, says on page 6, last paragaph, see link below, that "No dwellings appeared on Gardner or any other signs of inhabitation". This totally contradicts Lt Lambrecht's report of this issue.

Capt Friedell seemed to be more concerned about the visit of "Neptunus Rex and his court" than this discrepancy, see last para page 7 and 1st para page 8 of his report.

Copyright 2019 by TIGHAR, a non-profit foundation. No portion of the TIGHAR Website may be reproduced by xerographic, photographic, digital or any other means for any purpose. No portion of the TIGHAR Website may be stored in a retrieval system, copied, transmitted or transferred in any form or by any means, whether electronic, mechanical, digital, photographic, magnetic or otherwise, for any purpose without the express, written permission of TIGHAR. All rights reserved.